Scrutable

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:38 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:14 am Is it bad when your treasurer is arrested in an investigation into your finances?

Speaking to journalists ahead of his statement, Mr Yousaf said Mr Beattie's arrest was "clearly a very serious matter indeed" but he had not been suspended from the party as "people are innocent until proven guilty".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65309791

One of the reasons to suspend someone is to stop them from doing any harm while the matter is being investigated. Waiting for a guilty verdict would potentially mean doing nothing for years.

Yes, and suspension pending investigation doesn't have to be treated as a punishment if the person in question is subsequently exonerated.

Is it bad when the long term leader you built a cult of personality around is arrested in an investigation into your finances?

Now she's been arrested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857

Tessa K wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 3:43 pm Now she's been arrested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857

... and released without charge

shpalman wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 10:40 am

Tessa K wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 3:43 pm Now she's been arrested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857

... and released without charge

As is quite common for this sort of investigation. It may well be she had no involvement in any criminal behaviour and unless she's charged and tried, that is the fairest and safest position to assume. However, as I said previously, where the issue is campaign finance fraud in a political party, those investigated generally should be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, but that suspension should not be treated as proof of guilt.

“Arrested” basically means she was asked questions under caution, doesn’t it?

Grumble wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:41 pm “Arrested” basically means she was asked questions under caution, doesn’t it?

Not really, people can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. I'm trying to find out what the situation is in Scotland though because I've been wondering for a little while why arrests are being made in these circumstances. Not in an 'it's a conspiracy!' way, just curious.

ETA: I can't see much difference between England and Scotland on that front (happy to be corrected if wrong, but it does seem a bit draconian if the only way the police could question someone was to arrest them and therefore be entitled to hold them in custody), the only thing I can think of is that perhaps they wanted to arrest to allow them to exercise certain powers that they couldn't use if they didn't arrest, but that's not been reported.

discovolante wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 1:06 pm

Grumble wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:41 pm “Arrested” basically means she was asked questions under caution, doesn’t it?

Not really, people can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. I'm trying to find out what the situation is in Scotland though because I've been wondering for a little while why arrests are being made in these circumstances. Not in an 'it's a conspiracy!' way, just curious.

ETA: I can't see much difference between England and Scotland on that front (happy to be corrected if wrong, but it does seem a bit draconian if the only way the police could question someone was to arrest them and therefore be entitled to hold them in custody), the only thing I can think of is that perhaps they wanted to arrest to allow them to exercise certain powers that they couldn't use if they didn't arrest, but that's not been reported.

IANAL but I think if someone is arrested they can be held for longer if necessary

Tessa K wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:35 pm

discovolante wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 1:06 pm

Grumble wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:41 pm “Arrested” basically means she was asked questions under caution, doesn’t it?

Not really, people can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. I'm trying to find out what the situation is in Scotland though because I've been wondering for a little while why arrests are being made in these circumstances. Not in an 'it's a conspiracy!' way, just curious.

ETA: I can't see much difference between England and Scotland on that front (happy to be corrected if wrong, but it does seem a bit draconian if the only way the police could question someone was to arrest them and therefore be entitled to hold them in custody), the only thing I can think of is that perhaps they wanted to arrest to allow them to exercise certain powers that they couldn't use if they didn't arrest, but that's not been reported.

IANAL but I think if someone is arrested they can be held for longer if necessary

Well that's the thing, if it's a voluntary interview you can leave any time you want, but if you're arrested then you can't. I haven't really seen any suggestion that Sturgeon and co would have tried to abscond. So I'm wondering why they were all arrested. They don't seem to be on bail either (again correct me if I'm wrong) so it doesn't seem like any conditions would have been imposed on them either, from what I've read anyway.

Tessa K wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:35 pm

discovolante wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 1:06 pm

Grumble wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:41 pm “Arrested” basically means she was asked questions under caution, doesn’t it?

Not really, people can be interviewed under caution without being arrested. I'm trying to find out what the situation is in Scotland though because I've been wondering for a little while why arrests are being made in these circumstances. Not in an 'it's a conspiracy!' way, just curious.

ETA: I can't see much difference between England and Scotland on that front (happy to be corrected if wrong, but it does seem a bit draconian if the only way the police could question someone was to arrest them and therefore be entitled to hold them in custody), the only thing I can think of is that perhaps they wanted to arrest to allow them to exercise certain powers that they couldn't use if they didn't arrest, but that's not been reported.

IANAL but I think if someone is arrested they can be held for longer if necessary

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-sc ... s-65873423

Officers had been able to question Ms Sturgeon for a maximum of 12 hours before deciding whether to charge her with a crime or release her while they carry out further inquiries.

The point I'm making is that I'm not sure if she needed to be arrested. She said she would co-operate and attended voluntarily *to be* arrested. It may have been a precaution should she have decided not to, or made a run for it (although in that case I guess they could have arrested her at that point). In which case, fair enough if it was justified, I'm just not entirely clear whether it was or not.

Possibly (and this is more just even more random speculation really) it makes it less messy too. If they'd ended up having to question her voluntarily over a period exceeding 12 hours (although it can be extended to 24 hours if certain tests are met and appropriate authorisation is given https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/1/section/11)
and she'd attended voluntarily and at that point decided to leave, it would have raised all sorts of questions. But the 12 hour limit is a bit cleaner, in a way. Although that wouldn't be a legal basis for arresting someone.